Re: audience for "reference architecture" content
Alan Conley <aconley@...>
I'm referring mostly to large enterprises.
From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 8:50 AM
To: Alan Conley
Subject: Re: audience for "reference architecture" content
"anyone assembling a container management solution (orchestrator,
control plane etc.) and anyone attempting to build a functional
component that would fit within that architecture. Pretty much every
company I've spoken with is currently rolling their own from a select
set of open source projects and developing their own glue to fill gaps
and stitch the pieces together"
Does this mean:
- large enterprises
On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 4:44 PM, Alan Conley <aconley@...> wrote:
> I think this goes back to what is the charter of the CNCF.
> Taking a few short cuts in this narrative and avoiding some of the politics.
> Containers became mainstream when docker "standardized" their use. The
> industry saw this rapid adoption and suggested a forum should "govern" these
> standards which resulted in the OCP->OCI. From the OCI charter,
> "...industry participants may easily contribute to building a
> vendor-neutral, portable and open specification and runtime...". So we have
> both a spec and working code.
> What was missing, was the equivalent for container management (orchestrator,
> control plane, monitoring) solutions. I believe this was the genesis of the
> CNCF, originated by Craig and why k8s was the initial project. The original
> reference architecture provided a simple view of these functional
> components. BTW, most would see the similarities between this and OpenStack
> for VMs. I personally have no interest in seeing the CNCF focused on one
> Assuming I'm not completely off the path, the target audience for the ref
> arch is anyone assembling a container management solution (orchestrator,
> control plane etc.) and anyone attempting to build a functional component
> that would fit within that architecture. Pretty much every company I've
> spoken with is currently rolling their own from a select set of open source
> projects and developing their own glue to fill gaps and stitch the pieces
> together. (My company is doing that for our own SaaS solutions.) There are
> a few of us interested in extending what we see as one of the needed
> functional components. However, we are unclear on how others see that
> interfacing with other components and in some cases see overlapping
> capabilities. We can certainly just put it out there and see if there is
> adoption, but then that begs the question as to what value does the CNCF
> actually provide other than marketing.
> I'll stop before this becomes too much of a ramble, for comments.
> From: Alexis Richardson <alexis@...>
> Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2016 4:54 AM
> To: cncf-toc@...
> Subject: audience for "reference architecture" content
> Hi all,
> Yesterday we had our 2nd discussion about the 'marketecture' stack that Ken
> and I put out. One piece of feedback, from Doug Davis by email, and then eg
> from Alan Conley on the call, was that much more detail could help.
> I believe this is a "target audience" issue. We may need different material
> for different audiences even if those audiences are all "technical". For
> example - I argued that for developer end users, less detail is good.
> It would be very helpful to hear from the people advocating for more detail,
> regarding their target audience.